[Gord]

George I thank you from the bottom of my heart for that response. I have printed it off for my binder of study material I have begun to collect. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and experience you have shared with us all on this.

Blessings and Sincere thanks

Gord

[Brother Tim]

George, you have given an excellent foundation for study for those who are truly seeking an answer from God about which Bible is ordained by Him.

This video series posted by Debau (#66) is very interesting.

www.biblefortoday.org/idx_videos_wayside_bc.htm

Dr. Waite is quite criticial of Dr. Ruckman about his treating the English translation as inspired in the same way the original texts are. What do people here think of Dr. Waite?

I've also saved the post by George (#69) for further reference.

[PB1789]

To the thread question:---I'm new to the Forums( though I've had the site on my favorites list for sometime now) and I don't know who is legit and who is here to cause trouble-... I'll post a simple answer from what I've heard/read over the years.

Probably, Yes. Possibly, No. The term is from the late 1800's/early 1900's when several solid christians noticed that many churches/groups/colleges were drifting towards ecumenical fuzziness, and doctrinal deviations . Some concerned laymen put up the money to put into print some messages which explained "The Fundamentals" of Christianity. One of the names often used in relation with those volumes {4 Volumes-now published by Baker Books} is R.A. Torrey and The Bible Institute of Los Angeles, on South Hope Street.

I've read many of Reuben Archer Torrey's sermons and a couple of his books over the years, and they are very good/Christ beholding/liberal-ecumenical thumping messages. But I'm pretty/semi? sure that Torrey was a user of the 1901 American Version, which was a younger brother of the 1881 English version, spawned by Westcott and Hort.

Try this website and you can see the volumes and the articles mentioned in each one.

http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis

Yes, Torrey used the American Standard Version. Though there certainly were fundamentalists around before someone coined the phrase in regards to Christians.

[Brother Tim]

I think that it is important to note that we cannot place the exact same terminology or even standards of behavior or belief on those of past generations as we do contemporaries.

There was a time, shudder the thought, that many (white) Christians saw no problem with owning slaves. There was a time that the destruction of those of opposing beliefs was seen as a service to God. It was during the reign of King James himself that Baptists were still persecuted. Great men like Calvin persecuted those who disagreed with them. These people were not evil; they were not enlightened to the full truth. We still have Baptist churches that have segregationist attitudes today. Their eyes are still blind.

I believe that many if not most of the "fundamentalists" who used different texts during the period of the early 1900's as well as those who lived during the first 300 years of the KJB who did not take a strong position on the text would very likely be right in the middle of the KJBO camp today, considering the overflow of corrupted versions and the emphasis that is being placed on the issue today.

Originally Posted by Brother Tim

There was a time, shudder the thought, that many (white) Christians saw no problem with owning slaves. There was a time that the destruction of those of opposing beliefs was seen as a service to God. It was during the reign of King James himself that Baptists were still persecuted. Great men like Calvin persecuted those who disagreed with them. These people were not evil; they were not enlightened to the full truth. We still have Baptist churches that have segregationist attitudes today. Their eyes are still blind.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but the Bible does not teach that slavery is wrong - in fact, it was God Himself that put certain nations into slavery. What the Bible does teach is that abuse of slaves is wrong, and that slaves are not to do wrong to their masters either.

Being enlightened on this issue would imply that someone had a wrong Biblical understanding of slavery, and then got it corrected by getting the right understanding and applying that. I am glad slavery is abolished - but Biblically speaking, there is no way to say that slavery in itself is a moral evil (or else that would make God evil when He allowed the Israelites to be enslaved and caused other nations to be enslaved as a punishment of their sins and rebellion against Him.

[Brother Tim]

Jerry said: "...that would make God evil when He allowed.."

Brother, you are opening a VERY BIG can o' worms with this argument.

God has allowed many evil things to take place throughout history.

There is a contextual difference in the word "servant" as used in the KJB and the word "slave" as used in the last few centuries.

The fact that the Israelites and other nations have been slaves, as you said, "as a punishment of their sins and rebellion against [God]," is not evil in purpose if it is God's method of operation, but it is evil in its condition (i.e. the suffering of the slave).

Can of worms or not, let's deal with what the Bible actually says. God is the one who brought Israel down into Egypt, knowing they would be made slaves. He freed them because of their oppression. He stated that the nation of Israel could make slaves of the nations they were conquering (except for the Canaanites), and the Gibeonites are an example of that (though they lied as to how far away they were from). God is the one who directly brought the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities on the nation of Israel. Yes, He also judged those nations for what they did wrong in their treatment of Israel - but the Bible nowhere teaches that the slavery in itself was wrong.

Genesis is pretty clear that God is the one who brought slavery on Ham's descendants, due to Ham's and Canaan's sin.

Genesis 9:24-27 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

This is what the New Testament says about Christian slaves and masters - it is not speaking against slavery, but against misuse of slaves (oppression), and against mistreatment of their masters.

Ephesians 6:5-9 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

And before I get accused on anything, I am not for slavery - but I want to make sure any discussion we have is based on a Biblical view of the issue, not some politically correct view or social gospel view. I am glad that in most cases slavery is abolished, though we know there are places in the world where it still happens, and Revelation refers to slavery yet to come by the endtime Babylonian government and religion.

Revelation 18:10-13 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

[Brother Tim]

Jerry, we are getting off thread on the topic. It may be a good topic for another thread, based on others responses. HOWEVER, my (attempted) point was that we view those in the past through the glasses of today, and sometimes it just doesn't fit.

Let me try a little different approach on the idea of slavery. Many of our early political leaders had slaves or supported slavery to some degree. When their names are used (particularly in reference to their faith influencing their politics) there are those who discount these men's credibility because they were involved in or they condoned slavery. I believe many of these men under today's conditions and understanding of freedom would be very strong in their opposition to any type of racial prejudice or oppression.

In the same light, I believe that many of those fundamental preachers and writers of the past who did not have any known firm position on preservation as it relates to translation, if alive today, would have a very similar view as most KJBO's. Many good men got caught up in the "scholarship" of the new translations, not knowing the heritage of those versions and the corruptions that were introduced. Case in point: Frank Logsdon, who was involved in bringing the NAS into existence, later recanted his support after learning of the gross errors it produced. (Since you are the resident Cloudist or is it Cloudian , you can find his story on wayoflife.org. - spoken as a fellow Cloud-aide drinker )